This post shows that it was answered in the FAQ, but no FAQ entry exists, as far as I can tell.
----

The questions are essentially as follows:

Does feather fall require a DC 21 concentration check as other spells while falling?

Are you considered flat footed and thus unable to cast feather fall after activating a pit trap.
Bonus related questions:

Can you cast other spells normally while under the effects of feather fall? (Still technically falling and under 500 feet)

If feather falldoes require a concentration check, does a supernatural version of the spell do so as well? (As per the wizard's air school power)

----
No, this is not intended to reopen debate on a question already debated to death in too many other threads. I only want official references, not opinions.

My own questions are:
Has this answer somehow been posted in a weird non-FAQ, non-forum location?
(No relevant posts by Pathfinder Design Team, which is the only official rulings source for forum posts)
Can we get whatever that answer was actually put into the FAQ?
(hit that button!)

---

I'll just add my personal opinion, for whatever little it's worth, that the "magic parachute" can always be deployed successfully when relevant, barring extreme circumstances such as an anti-magic field. RAW may disagree.)

New to PFS (long time player otherwise).
Looking over the factions... I can't say I like any of them.

The Concordance - Not really bad, just not entirely sold on it.
Dark Archive - I just get a vibe that it's evil and barely grasp why it's even allowed to exist as an option for players.
The Exchange - Too much greed here.
Grand Lodge - Motto: 'Loyalty to the Society Above All'... umm.. too domineering for my taste.
Liberty’s Edge - Not a bad goal. Doesn't interest me much though.
Scarab Sages - Most appealing to me, and my first (and only) character is a member. Her first scenario is tomorrow. Still 'meh' on it.
Silver Crusade - Too much paladin. (Paladins are my least favourite class by a margin of "I ban this class in any home game I run". Extreme, but I don't care.)
Sovereign Court - I couldn't care less about the nobility and their shenanigans.

So... Concordance, Liberty & Sages are the only three I have even marginal interest in being a part of.
I feel this puts a serious limit on my possible character options if I want them to actually make sense for whichever faction I reluctantly make them a part of.

One member of my gaming group, the only other one still remaining from our original group. (Others have left, new ones have joined...) has a tendency to railroad when she runs the game.
The two examples that annoyed me the most are following:
We had just finished a story arc and into town where a new plot hook ended up waiting for us: A stone statue of a paladin, which my character learned (through some effect that just put the info in my mind when next to it, iirc) that he was actually a real person turned to stone and was basically given the quest to break his curse.
My character, the only one to actually receive this message, a CN bard who dislikes paladins (which, as a player, I'd already made abundantly clear was my absolute least favourite class by a wide margin) just starts laughing hard and walks away. I didn't mention it, but was thinking it would be hilarious and awesome if all paladins were turned to stone.

A few sessions later we'd somehow incidentally rescued him anyway, despite no other PCs knowing about this quest and mine having already made it clear he didn't want it to happen. Probably would have actively worked against it if I'd been given any hint that we were on track to freeing him regardless while on what I believed, until after we'd suddenly freed him, was an entirely different and completely unrelated quest.

This second example ended in a literal ragequit.
This was a new campaign, I'm playing a crossblooded sorcerer (elemental/dragon, both with electric powers).
There were a few homebrew rules in effect, also the GM has an obsession with vampires. She's since actually gone to get custom fangs made for herself... this is very relevant.

Anyway, at one point one of the PCs, a tiefling, contracts a vampirism curse. She'll not actually turn into a vampire until she actually drinks blood, so the rest of the party, as a whole, did their best to keep her from doing so until we could find a cure.
Cue the GM talking to the tiefling's player outside the game and coming up with a plan that has her drink blood while the rest of the party can't interfere...
That part happened like this: Part of the plot involved some villain going back in time and changing things. (There was some ripple effect that made it change in wave that we, in the present, actually noticed and we ended up with amulets that protected us from it...) We made arrangements with the leader of the city at the center of this (a vampire, no less.) and jumped back in time. The entire party except, of course, the half-vapiric tiefling, is knocked unconscious for several hours after the jump. She managed to get up immediately, apparently because of her infernal blood. (my elemental/draconic blood didn't help me in any way, of course).
So we chase her down and she's drunk blood and all that.
The other players mostly just rolled with it, including a small retcon after another player was going to attack her but yet another player ended up saying 'what if my character had said....' and it got accepted.
I only had one response: She must die now. I would not hear otherwise and very vocally ragequit the campaign. (This was, admittedly, a very very poor response on my part. I quit rping for over a year afterwards. Have better meds now.)

Anyway, now to modern day. New campaign, different GM, this person is now a player.
We started at level 3, we're 4.
Undead bloodline gnome sorceress.
The following things have been becoming increasingly clear:
She has no combat spells.
Her favourite spells to cast are invisibility and expeditious retreat. (After earlier somehow trying to weaponize mage hand for reasons that boggle the mind for a player with enough roleplaying and GMing experience that she should know what she declared the PC was attempting was not actually possible.)
She's a pyromaniac.
The 'chaotic neutral' on her character sheet is a lie. I'd have probably shifted her alignment and had her character sheet destroyed after she shoved a vial of alchemist's fire down the throat of an enemy a while back. (I don't even remember how she was even allowed to attempt it, even less how she succeeded... I think GM just went with 'rule of cool')

In our last game, the boss fight we'd been making our way towards for the last several sessions, her actions amounted to turning invisible and going to play with a distraction (a 'baba yaga' type hut on spider legs). That made the rest of the combat safer for the rest of the party. By the player's own admission, she was going to go try starting a forest fire (keeping in mind we're in the middle of said forest) until the distraction was pointed out.
It doesn't end there. The hut had been described as something of a 'gilded turd'. Pretty ramshackle hut, but the inside was richly decorated with nice carpets and stuff. So just before trying to make her way out of the hut (the door wouldn't open) after the rest of us had finally managed to win the rather deadly combat without her she throws a vial of alchemist's fire behind her and starts burning the place down, deliberately destroying possible loot. This semi-alive thing of course doesn't like the fire and is moving around like crazy making it more difficult for her to escape... unfortunately in character my NG cleric of Shelyn wielding a glaive couldn't just let her die so chopped a hole in the wall she could escape through. The 10 foot reach of the weapon made this relatively easy. The movement and height of the spider-hut made it pretty much impossible to put the fire out. (I could have conjured more than enough water to do so otherwise. Might have salvaged something.)

I had talk to the GM about my issues in the week before last session. After last session I talked to him and gave an ultimatum: That character is removed from play or I leave the table. This will be discussed next session with the other players and which character leaves the party will be determined then.

Things will be a bit awkward, if it's me, since we game at my mother's house. It's the only place between us that's free, quiet, and has a large enough table for a battlemap!

If this doesn't go my way, I am most likely never going to play another rpg involving that person in any capacity, which is sad as she's one of the first friends I made in this city. We'll still have our board game nights though (we alternate PF/board games week to week).

For the record, I kept quiet as long as I did mostly with the memory of my ragequit in mind and not wanting to cause another scene. Also hoping the GM would himself actually call her out on her evil acts and tell her to stop.

While the animate objects spell specifically states that the object attacks whatever you designate, there is no such ruling for those created using Craft Construct.

Furthermore, I can't find any general ruling that states constructs are controlled by their creator, only specific (and differing) instances as per the spell or in their own descriptions.

So by RAW as I see it, crafted animated objects are just mindless creatures with no direction and not much incentive to do anything. Should they be somehow goaded into attacking (I can't see why they'd initiate combat), they wouldn't differentiate their creator from any other creature.

Similarly, those created by the spell, which seem to have only one command, attack: What do you do with those made permanent? Designating new targets requires actively doing so with a move action, so leaving them alone to guard would have no effect, and hauling them around would be annoying at best, with no incentive to follow you unless you designate yourself as their target. (And without a 'stop' command you'd have to designate a rock or something else pointless for them to pulverize to stand down.)

Was reading through the campaign clarifications, and under Legacy of Dragons there are two conflicting entries for page 4.
"... you gain DR/ piercing or slashing."
"... you gain DR/ piercing and slashing."

With or it would mean either one works. The and would mean that a weapon must be doing both types to bypass DR.

Given and would effectively give DR/— (does anyone have a hurlbat?), I would assume or is correct.

Second, for page 22
"A drake rider gains skill points as indicated in the skills section on page 22, not as indicated in the table on page 23. Drakes that do not raise their intelligence scores gain 3 hit points per HD."

A Drakerider is an archetype presented on page 24. Don't understand the presence of 'rider' above (I assume this is simply an error).

I don't understand the final part at all. What it seems to be saying is that, so long as the drake remains stupid with it's starting Int of 4 and never boosting it through any means (typically through the ability boost every 5 levels) it has more HP, and that as soon as its intelligence increases, that bonus HP is lost.
No part of that line seems to be mentioned in the book in any way, and it doesn't seem consistent with general Pathfinder rules.
I can't think of any other situation where higher Int equals lower HP.